Delhi gang-rapists sentenced to death

[ithehappy]

He didn't mean all the Indian men, maybe most of them, yeah that sounds right. Also no point in seeing other countries which are in worse shape than ours, we should follow the better ones. Never really understood when people starts compare things which are sub par, just because some countries are in worst shape we have to stay the same? or are we in good shape already? Consolation? God knows what's the point!

 

[ithehappy]

This is what is happening to our country. Everyone who is supporting the death penalty on this thread, including yourself, are trapped inside a behavioral sink. That is why you cannot see beyond the death penalty and the fact that constructive measures like increasing patrol duty, increasing the size of the police-force, restructuring laws, etc elude you is proof that your attitude is affected by external factors. Does anyone even realize that this was the first crime committed by the likes of a bus-driver, a gym instructor, a fruit seller and a juvenile with no past history of violence. They're just ordinary people, no different from anyone on this thread except in social-standing, committing violent acts of crime.

I don't know if this guy/gal is human or not, chances are rare, but even those persons who actually committed the crime won't agree with this utter nonsense. I am highly suspicious about this person, I mean who he is..............hmmmm....................

PS: Damn no auto merge! Please merge the posts.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

Sati being one. The other is the Devadasi system, which was well established in the 10th century AD itself. Child marriages; young girls being married to older males was also practised. Polygamy was also widely prevalent, though the problem was that it was restricted only to males; same as in other medieval cultures.

All the evidence points towards the fact that women weren't better off in the pre-independence era.

You were born in the 20th century. This is the 21st century. You were brought up to believe that religious practices like Sati, Devadasi, child marriages and polygamy are social 'evils'. The people who lived centuries ago weren't. Stop judging a culture using your own standards.

Sati was performed only once in the entire lifetime of a married woman. So technically, it isn't a form of mental/physical abuse unless the woman was consciously married off to a terminally ill man. But its certainly barabaric to be practised in modern times.

In respect to social standing, Devadasi is similar to positions like high priestesses/temple priestesses in early greek culture, etc.. It was considered a privilege to serve in such a position and they probably did so to bring honor to their family. Child marriage is tricky because even the groom is under aged. You can't argue that only the girl suffered. Also, when everyone around you is getting married at such an early age, socially, the pressure was competing to get married at an early age. But if you were to ask if i thought child marriage was primitive and regressive in todays world then my answer is yes. I won't argue about polygamy because in any age it simply underpowers and lowers the status of a woman both socially and mentally.

they had just robbed a previous passenger before the couple had boarded. just because they didnt have a record doesnt mean that they were not criminals. they must have just been not caught till then.

You don't know that. And just because you alone think it, it doesn't mean its the truth.

wth?! that's like saying hitler was an ordinary guy who just happened to execute millions of people.

No. Hitler was an influential politician and a megalomaniac who had a confusing childhood.

what does this even mean?? it's like saying illiteracy is primitive only when directly compared to literacy. Otherwise it's fine in isolation

If you cannot understand my posts either ask me to explain myself again or ask someone else to help you. Resorting to crude and simplistic analogies will only confuse yourself and others even more.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

I don't know if this guy/gal is human or not, chances are rare, but even those persons who actually committed the crime won't agree with this utter nonsense. I am highly suspicious about this person, I mean who he is..............hmmmm....................

PS: Damn no auto merge! Please merge the posts.

First it was vulgarities and baseless comments. Now its encouraging paranoia.

Always a pleasure to see you again!

He didn't mean all the Indian men, maybe most of them, yeah that sounds right. Also no point in seeing other countries which are in worse shape than ours, we should follow the better ones. Never really understood when people starts compare things which are sub par, just because some countries are in worst shape we have to stay the same? or are we in good shape already? Consolation? God knows what's the point!

So your idea of stepping up to other developed countries is blindly dishing out a barbaric practise like CP?

 

[blkrb0t]

You were born in the 20th century. This is the 21st century. You were brought up to believe that religious practices like Sati, Devadasi, child marriages and polygamy are social 'evils'. The people who lived centuries ago weren't. Stop judging a culture using your own standards.

On one hand you want to claim that women were better off before in pre-independence era, but on the other hand you don't want the plight of the situations to be compared with present times.

If I'm comparing two diffrent cultures of the same era, then I wouldn't judge them by my own standards. I'd have to do a comparative study to see which culture had better social standing and gender equality practices. But here I'm comparing what was then with what is now, and there is no rational way to day it other than judging it with all the information that is available to me at present.

By the way, I'm not the only one who is thinking such. There were many movements to restore equality even before the British stepped foot in India. A few examples are the Bhakti movement to reform Hinduism and the emergence of Sikhism.

Sati was performed only once in the entire lifetime of a married woman. So technically, it isn't a form of mental/physical abuse unless the woman was consciously married off to a terminally ill man. But its certainly barabaric to be practised in modern times.

What? How is that a defence for the horrific practice? Widowed men weren't subjected to the same, but only women were. Not to mention widowed men were allowed to remarry, whereas women weren't. It is a perfect example of gender discrimination, which makes it entirely clear that a women is a property of man, and she should be taken care of if her owner dies.

It was barbaric then, and it is barbaric now.

In respect to social standing, Devadasi is similar to positions like high priestesses/temple priestesses in early greek culture, etc.. It was considered a privilege to serve in such a position and they probably did so to bring honor to their family.

Why was it considered a privilege? Because the society demanded so. Thus, women weren't better off in that society than they are in today's India. Your initial claim was that women in pre-independence India were better off than they were now, not compare it with the ancient Greek culture.

All the practices point to the exact opposite.

 

[chiron]

wth?! that's like saying hitler was an ordinary guy who just happened to execute millions of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[deepakvrao]

They're just ordinary people, no different from anyone on this thread except in social-standing, committing violent acts of crime.

About the most absurd statement [IMO] on this thread. Once they committed that crime, they are no longer 'like anyone on this thread'.

 

[blkrb0t]

About the most absurd statement [IMO] on this thread. Once they committed that crime, they are no longer 'like anyone on this thread'.

It's not entirely absurd, when you consider the fact that they hadn't committed any such crimes prior to that act. What made them act in such a way? Why did they choose to do that? Were they all just psychopaths, or did they calculate the chances of them being caught and acted upon that? Is weak law and judiciary to blame for such actions, or is it the entire society itself? Or a combination of both?

Just asking for capital punishment won't change anything, apart from placating the emotional outrage due to one case. Steps have to be taken to make the entire society reform itself; just doling out capital punishment isn't going to change the mindset of the people who are willing to take the risk.

It's a very complex situation, as it is also a very emotional issue. Even then, people who are educated should take time to introspect and address the core issues.

 

[blr_p]

It's not entirely absurd, when you consider the fact that they hadn't committed any such crimes prior to that act.
What made them act in such a way?

Why did they choose to do that?

Were they all just psychopaths, or did they calculate the chances of them being caught and acted upon that?

Is weak law and judiciary to blame for such actions, or is it the entire society itself? Or a combination of both?

Hope we will get the answers to all those questions in time.

if this was the first time they did such one wonders what the triggers were. What were they thinking.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

On one hand you want to claim that women were better off before in pre-independence era, but on the other hand you don't want the plight of the situations to be compared with present times.

If I'm comparing two diffrent cultures of the same era, then I wouldn't judge them by my own standards. I'd have to do a comparative study to see which culture had better social standing and gender equality practices. But here I'm comparing what was then with what is now, and there is no rational way to day it other than judging it with all the information that is available to me at present.

You can only understand the plight of the situation if you spent a day reliving the life of a person back then.

A comparative study of two cultures be it in the same era or not needs to be conducted by setting aside your standards that your culture imbibed in you. How can anyone perform a comparative study between cultures that have no present day connection when their mind is biased towards their own culture? the only way to perform such a study thoroughly is to actually relive a period of time in each culture.

Ordinary people may tend to imagine other people as basically the same, not significantly more or less valuable, probably attached emotionally to different groups and different land.

Your case is an example of cultural cognitive bias.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_biashttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cognition

By the way, I'm not the only one who is thinking such. There were many movements to restore equality even before the British stepped foot in India. A few examples are the Bhakti movement to reform Hinduism and the emergence of Sikhism.

The Bhakti movement exemplifies the female form but can you tell me where it says that it was started with the specific intention to liberate women let alone free oppressed castes?

What? How is that a defence for the horrific practice? Widowed men weren't subjected to the same, but only women were. Not to mention widowed men were allowed to remarry, whereas women weren't. It is a perfect example of gender discrimination, which makes it entirely clear that a women is a property of man, and she should be taken care of if her owner dies.

It was barbaric then, and it is barbaric now.

Look, please get one thing straight. I’m not defending the practice of Sati. I’m only doing my best to explain the mentality prevalent in that area.

If it was barbaric then why isn’t there any mention of a large movement in the history books that was started with the specific intention of wiping out Sato, let alone liberate women before Raja Ram Mohan Roy?

Why was it considered a privilege? Because the society demanded so. Thus, women weren't better off in that society than they are in today's India. Your initial claim was that women in pre-independence India were better off than they were now, not compare it with the ancient Greek culture.

All the practices point to the exact opposite.

It was considered a privilege amongst everyone at that time because society collectively encouraged it by spreading it in positive light with kickbacks like honor and rise in status. Yes, society demanded so and need I remind you that a large part of society constitutes of women unless you’re counting them out.

I brought the priestess’s of ancient Greece into the picture only because you would not understand that nowhere in Greece’s history till present day has any philosopher or historian made a direct connection between women’s inequality and Greece’s ancient religious practice involving female temple priestess’s. This is an example of a comparative study where you identify the similarities between two cultures without bias.[DOUBLEPOST=1380193258][/DOUBLEPOST]

About the most absurd statement [IMO] on this thread. Once they committed that crime, they are no longer 'like anyone on this thread'.

You're oversimplifying.

 

[blr_p]

A comparative study of two cultures be it in the same era or not needs to be conducted by setting aside your standards that your culture imbibed in you. How can anyone perform a comparative study between cultures that have no present day connection when their mind is biased towards their own culture? the only way to perform such a study thoroughly is to actually relive a period of time in each culture.

I still did not understand how you asserted that women were better off pre-independence compared to now.

How did you arrive at that conclusion. What frames of reference did you use.

If we cannot use todays standards to judge them then aren't you doing the same by using yesterdays standards to say women today are worse off

 

[blkrb0t]

You can only understand the plight of the situation if you spent a day reliving the life of a person back then.

A comparative study of two cultures be it in the same era or not needs to be conducted by setting aside your standards that your culture imbibed in you. How can anyone perform a comparative study between cultures that have no present day connection when their mind is biased towards their own culture? the only way to perform such a study thoroughly is to actually relive a period of time in each culture.

You are saying the exact same thing which I said, but still arriving at a conflicting conclusion. You initial assertion was that women in pre-independence era were better off; I am challenging that point in my arguments.

 

[ithehappy]

About the most absurd statement [IMO] on this thread. Once they committed that crime, they are no longer 'like anyone on this thread'.

It's not just absurd, it's rather exclusively foolish. That particular crime those a--holes committed were caught, but as someone said before what's the proof that they didn't do it before? Are all the crimes being caught nowadays? I can't believe a guy or whatever object that person is, keep on lecturing about so many different things trying to prove he is 'civilized/high standard' person is ultimately failing each time with utter foolishness! As you have seen when I had gone on little bit personal this same civilized person was all raged up
Once again it's like talking in circles, as long as your family is unaffected you are a professor teaching so many different things, when not, you are a normal person who stopped lecturing and just got back to real life.
Reading some pages of this topic will give a new user an idea of a historic lesson, but this is about a rape, a brutal assault and a murder, reminding just in case one might have forgotten!
Meh!

 

[sid_donnydarko]

I still did not understand how you asserted that women were better off pre-independence compared to now.

How did you arrive at that conclusion. What frames of reference did you use.

If we cannot use todays standards to judge them then aren't you doing the same by using yesterdays standards to say women today are worse off

You are saying the exact same thing which I said, but still arriving at a conflicting conclusion. You initial assertion was that women in pre-independence era were better off; I am challenging that point in my arguments.

Relive that period without using today's standards as a frame of reference, i.e, become a person living in that period with no connection/memory of present day.

Or if you were to ask a woman from that period if she thought that social practices like Sati or child marriage were socially evil then the answer would vary from the majority being 'fine' and few speaking out about it as 'uncomfortable'. From a women's perspective, this is why i strongly feel that they didn't suffer as much back then from THEIR perspective.
It is only when someone explicitly warns you
A) that what you've been doing is inhuman/wrong
(or)
B) that you're being taken granted for
that you start introspecting and asking yourself questions. I hope i've made myself clear.

 

[blr_p]

It seems you are saying that because women of that time did not complain or know how to that they were necessarily better off than today where women are supposedly more empowered and aware.

How do you know they were better off ? i stil don't know how to make that case.

Absence of complaints isn't proof for absence of problems is it.

Take family size for instance. Before independence 10 kids in a family was not remarkable, it was quite common. Fast forward to the present day. How many people can afford to have ten kids nowadays. So you can say it was easier to have more kids then than today. Whether those kids were better off than today is debatable. Life expectancy is a lot higher for one. In fact people had more kids then because chances of all surviving was not good to begin with. They also got married in their teens which would be discouraged in today's day and age.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

It seems you are saying that because women of that time did not complain or know how to that they were necessarily better off than today where women are supposedly more empowered and aware.

How do you know they were better off ? i stil don't know how to make that case.

Absence of complaints isn't proof for absence of problems is it.

What i'm saying is that women of that time did not know that they should've complained. At most they probably felt uncomfortable with certain social practices at a subconscious level; but didn't give it much thought and continued living their lives as it was.

Why do you think they weren't any large movements to liberate and empower women back then?

Why do you think women empowerment has become such a hot topic only in the last one millenia?

 

[filmguy]

Or if you were to ask a woman from that period if she thought that social practices like Sati or child marriage were socially evil then the answer would vary from the majority being 'fine' and few speaking out about it as 'uncomfortable'.

umm.. how do you know that is how they would've answered? did you come across some india today poll from the 1700's

as a very "knowledgeable" man once said -- "You don't know that. And just because you alone think it, it doesn't mean its the truth."

 

[sid_donnydarko]

umm.. how do you know that is how they would've answered? did you come across some india today poll from the 1700's

as a very "knowledgeable" man once said -- "You don't know that. And just because you alone think it, it doesn't mean its the truth."

Ok Mr.Smarty Pants...then answer two questions:

A) Why weren't there any large movements to liberate and empower women back then?

B) Why did women empowerment become such a hot topic only in the last one millenia?[DOUBLEPOST=1380241927][/DOUBLEPOST]@blr_p and @blkrb0t - try a blind test in this case

 

[blr_p]

What i'm saying is that women of that time did not know that they should've complained. At most they probably felt uncomfortable with certain social practices at a subconscious level; but didn't give it much thought and continued living their lives as it was.

I still don't get how this implies women were better off pre-independence.

Why do you think they weren't any large movements to liberate and empower women back then?

Why do you think women empowerment has become such a hot topic only in the last one millenia?

Last century, not millenia. Its only since WW1 that the lot of women began to improve. Why ? because when the men were out fighting and they were left holding back the fort and realised they were not as helpless as before. There were no men, they had to do things on their own.

Note that this starts off in the UK and is followed soon after in the US. A lot of men died afgter WW1, what do the politicos do ? give women the right to vote. It does not really take hold for a few years longer in the rest of the world.

 

[sid_donnydarko]

I still don't get how this implies women were better off pre-independence.


Last century, not millenia. Its only since WW1 that the lot of women began to improve. Why ? because when the men were out fighting and they were left holding back the fort and realised they were not as helpless as before. There were no men, they had to do things on their own.

Note that this starts off in the UK and is followed soon after in the US. A lot of men died afgter WW1, what do the politicos do ? give women the right to vote. It does not really take hold for a few years longer in the rest of the world.

Sorry meant century and not millenia. My bad.

The text in bold indirectly confirms my opinion.
They realized they weren't as helpless and incapable as men, implying that they didn't discover their full potential until the last century. Just because someone didn't discover their true potential doesn't mean that an external force was necessarily subjugating them into ignorance. If you want to break someone's spirit then you torture them. But if you want to keep someone ignorant than all you'll need to do is brainwash but not necessarily torture them into ignorance. Pre-British rule Indian society brainwashed women and kept them ignorant of their true potential for a long time. Pre-British rule Indian society did not consciously crush their spirit; because if it did then history would've recorded large movements that intended to liberate women.

Ignorance is bliss
- Thomas Gray

In the modern world, women consciously lead their lives in a patriarchal society knowing fully well that they can never explore their capabilities; a heavier burden to shoulder compared to women from the past(pre-British rule era) who subconsciously conformed to society and did only what was required of them.